Most U.F.O. skeptics are not open to the evidence

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by JimOberg


Oh, yeah, give me proof that it happened -- like, a link to a web story quoting that nasty-minded skeptic.

One example with documentation, please?


Again, could you provide evidence of this? Provide quotes from skeptics that called Dr. Mitchell senile or a liar.

He's already been asked before to provide evidence to support his claim and he has refused. He does not believe he needs to provide evidence; you should take him at his word. Matrix probably saw comments disagreeing with Mitchell and read into them his own prejudices, equating disagreement with ad hominems.


Mitchell accused of lying or being a senile old man?

ATS search might help.

Quotes from thread about Mitchell and McClelland:




"I just wish for once they would come forward before they became old and senile"

"...im not going to say senile old man
lol but a guy out looking for a quick buck?...maybe... "

"Credentials don't matter--old age and possible senility do not discriminate. You seem to be stating that people with such credentials are not allowed to be viewed as old and senile."

"I think what was intended to say is that it is strange that this kind of well informed people always only start talking when they reach their pension....If it is all true what they say at an older age...Why didn't they had the urge to tell the world when they had a younger age? That is the sceptisism I taste here on ATS and that is the sceptisism I myself have... When I told my father (that has seen the first man on the moon live on television) about Edward Mitchell he started laughing. Just because he is a old guy that has got nothing to do, so he makes up a nice story, was my father's idea about this.

So I actually will not even mention this so called 'Ed Mitchell back-up story' about 8-9 foot et's...So far it is just a couple of old men that feel neglected after walking on the moon (which of course is/was great!) with nothing to do anymore. I also think that is what is behind Ed Mitchell and the likes. Instead of a bridge- or stampcollectors club they have brought us a 'alien-story telling club'."


Such comments drew many responses, indicating some took this attitude as rather dismissive and insulting:




"To label people like Mitchell and Clarke as senile just is ignorant, you guys have never met these people, accomplished even a quarter (being very generous there) of the things they have done yet you riddicule them as being money making old fools?"

"Fortunately most people who have done real research can jump past the expected rebuttals (mental, greedy, hoaxer, senile, etc.)"

"The second anyone comes forward, they are instantly called out...

Kook! Liar! Senile! Idiot! Fraud! Loser! etc etc etc"

"I really wish that some people would get over the idea that evreybody over some arbitrary age is senile. ... Deciding someone's "worth" as a witness based on age is no different than saying because someone is black, they must be of lower IQ. Or because someone is from Latin America they must be backward. Or that because someone lacks a PHD they must be a liar.

This person deserves the same respect you would want."



www.abovetopsecret.com...



I'm sure there are many more such comments about Mitchell. All these came from one thread and I couldn't even be bothered looking all the way through.

I can see how the poster who refers to Mitchell being dismissed because of being senile or a liar out to make a buck formed that impression.

So they weren't making it up, as you suggest. This would have been incredibly easy to confirm, Rex. So I'm not sure why proving this was made such an issue when taking a couple of seconds to simply type the word "Senile" into search immediately gives hits taking us to discussions of Mitchell and showing that the OP had grounds for saying this. If the truth was really what you were interested in, it was at your fingertips all along.


[edit on 1-2-2010 by Malcram]




posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
OK, some nuts used the term... sad. Same terms other nuts use about skeptics. Not helpful.

Thanks for the constructive and informative response.

Anybody who resorts to such knee-jerk smears, let's get their home address and I'd go halfsies on a kneecapping.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Anybody who resorts to such knee-jerk smears, let's get their home address and I'd go halfsies on a kneecapping.


Sounds like a plan. But are you sure you're up to it Jim? - you're not as young as you used to.....DOH!


[edit on 1-2-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Well if people who don't believe in ufo's or find any evidence provided as credible. Then why the hell are they here for? I'm sure there views would be better served at Bad Astronomy.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
Well if people who don't believe in ufo's or find any evidence provided as credible. Then why the hell are they here for?


Sport.

Sad. But, in many cases, true.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MOTT the HOOPLE
 


We are obliviously waiting for the 1%



Originally posted by nophun
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

...
I am guessing 99% of the videos/images fit into this category...



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
(response to original post)


No, the skeptic says:

It MAY be a bird
It MAY be a weather balloon
It MAY be a kite
The person MIGHT be lying
The person MIGHT be mistaken
There MAY be a "natural" explanation

A DEBUNKER says the things you mentioned, and goes in with a set mind.
Skeptics (true Skeptics), try and keep an open mind, and see where the evidence takes them. Sometimes it fits the original hypothesis, sometimes it doesn't...



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
(response to original post)


No, the skeptic says:

It MAY be a bird
It MAY be a weather balloon
It MAY be a kite
The person MIGHT be lying
The person MIGHT be mistaken
There MAY be a "natural" explanation

A DEBUNKER says the things you mentioned, and goes in with a set mind.
Skeptics (true Skeptics), try and keep an open mind, and see where the evidence takes them. Sometimes it fits the original hypothesis, sometimes it doesn't...




You forget to add to your list that a true skeptic will also say: "It MAY be an ET craft".

Still, well said. Although debunkers can be quite subtle - and unfortunately they don't tend to openly call themselves 'debunkers', which is rather inconvenient. LOL. Rather they pretend to be - and falsely call themselves - 'skeptics', hence the OP's misunderstanding.

This is why I have repeatedly tried, along with several others, to create posts and threads clarifying the vast difference between true 'skeptics' and 'pseudo-skeptics' ('debunkers' who pose as skeptics, as the OP mentions)

By clarifying the huge difference between skeptics and pseudo-skeptics (see the links in my signature), and making members familiar with that difference, we would have far less threads where 'skeptics' are wrongly targeted, because the posters of such threads usually don't mean to criticize legitimate 'skeptics' at all, but 'pseudo-skeptics', they just aren't familiar with real meanings of the terms and the attitudes they signify.

When numbers of closed minded debunkers - pseudo-skeptics - falsely call themselves 'skeptics', then people eventually come to think that 'skeptic' must mean closed minded debunker, which is the misapprehension I feel the OP is under. It's an understandable mistake to make, under those circumstances.

However, whenever I or anyone else tries to clarify this at ATS by discussing pseudo-skepticism openly and it's differences to legitimate skepticism, certain pseudo-skeptics - some of whom have made an appearance in this very thread
- get EXTREMELY angry and put forth titanic efforts and use every underhand tactic at their disposal to shut down and derail the discussion as quickly as possible, and they are expert at doing it.

Discussion of pseudo-skepticism makes some members very nervous indeed, and with good reason, because if more members clearly understood what it was then their cover as supposed 'skeptics' would be blown, and they would no longer be able to exploit this confusion and hide behind the skirts of legitimate skeptics, constantly sowing division in the forum and maintaining the so-called 'skeptic' - 'believer' divide.

It's a shame that more legitimate skeptics don't recognize this problem and help to solve it. However, the usual tactic of pseudo-skeptics when confronted is to scream "Skeptics are being attacked! They're attacking skeptics!' and, unfortunately, even many legitimate skeptics seem to fall for this deceitful rallying cry and fall for the artificial conflict that it creates.

Still, that's ATS for ya.



Want fewer threads wrongly attacking 'skeptics'?

Then clarify the vast difference between true skeptics and pseudo-skeptics.

(Now if Rex doesn't reply to this post, I'll be very surprised.
)


[edit on 1-2-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
Well if people who don't believe in ufo's or find any evidence provided as credible. Then why the hell are they here for? I'm sure there views would be better served at Bad Astronomy.


Yep, and that is the million dollar question..
people that take the time to try and discredit an American hero like Mitchell or others, and call them old and senile smacks of an agenda for certain.
Anyone who has spoken to Mitchell can tell right off that he is highly intelligent and in 100% control of all his faculties...
discrediting and ridiculing has been the most effective weapon against the truth for a very long time. It is easy to see that it is still being used, but these days it makes some skeptics look incredibly stupid.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I do somewhat agree with Matrix Rising on this issue.

From what I have seen, many skeptics seem unwilling to have an opinion on the UFO issue and on the ET issue because there is no proof. I get the feeling many skeptics are afraid they are not being objective if they have an opinion on the issue before there is proof. If they have an opinion at all it is usually against there being UFO craft in the sky or ET visiting us.

There is clearly no physical tangible proof to show that UFO's are government craft or ET spacecraft but with all the evidence: testimony, radar returns, etc. if I had to stake a claim one way or the other, it seems to me that ET has visited and that some of the UFOs are government experimental aircraft.


Stephen Hawking has been more than willing to make bets on new physics discoveries. He has often been wrong but that does not stop him from forming an opinion from the available evidence and be willing to make a gentleman's bet based on that opinion.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Who post thread upon thread with youtube garbage and bs stories, is it the so called pseudo-skeptics? No. It's the pseudo-believers yelling alien spacecraft on just about anything.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
The famous radar cases combined with all the declassifed files should be enough to convince an impartial arbitrator, the military/media establishment has perpetuated a decades long disinformation campaign against the public concerning UFOs and the technology behind them. It's a matter of history.

Blue Book was a disinformation program. UFOs are highly classifed. You won't be told the truth about them in the NY Times or NBC News. Read Terry Hansen's book The Missing Times. We have a a somewhat free press, until it comes to the most vital national security secrets. The media has always cooperated with the authorities, during war, and on other sensitive issues.

The witness testimony of astronauts, including Edgar Mitchell, is icing on the cake. Gordon Cooper encountered silver flying saucers. Dozens of other military witnesses have stepped forward, like Dr. Robert Jacobs, former USAF photographic instrumentation officer.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


What in the world is a pseudo-believer?

Many of the labels we are using, pseudo-believer, debunker, pseudo-skeptic, true believer (which I will readily admit to using myself) make no sense. But that is the purpose of labels, short-hands to dismiss others without thought.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Read my sig...below

Second line.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by Gazrok
(response to original post)


No, the skeptic says:

It MAY be a bird
It MAY be a weather balloon
It MAY be a kite
The person MIGHT be lying
The person MIGHT be mistaken
There MAY be a "natural" explanation

A DEBUNKER says the things you mentioned, and goes in with a set mind.
Skeptics (true Skeptics), try and keep an open mind, and see where the evidence takes them. Sometimes it fits the original hypothesis, sometimes it doesn't...




You forget to add to your list that a true skeptic will also say: "It MAY be an ET craft".



Apparently not ... I argued the same thing in another thread not a million miles away from this one, but it seems that by approaching a thread/case/event, having added that one to the options, you are now viewing things with your mind made up


Apparently, to some 'sceptics', when you acknowledge the phenomenon as being real and one of the possible explanations for an event you are now unable to approach a case with an open mind.

I was actually accused of contradicting myself by saying that i will look at a case on the basis that that in my judgement the alien phenomena is real, thus giving it the same weight as any other potential explanation. Rather than take the approach of 'I will only consider the alien possibilty when all else fails', I prefer to ask 'what best fits the facts.

To me this is looking at the phenomena with an open mind... but apparently it counts as a contradiction ... go figure



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
one thing: I dont know if there are extraterrestrial beings already here, but, what I can tell u is that

if someone believes that we - as earth- are the only form of life in the universe, then you need to study a little more and get out of your mental sickness or mental prison ...

its almost impossible to live not exist somewhere or at least to say life existed somewhere else, the universe is so big ...

and I am just talking about one universe, besides parallel universes and other ones



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden
The witness testimony of astronauts, including Edgar Mitchell, is icing on the cake. Gordon Cooper encountered silver flying saucers. Dozens of other military witnesses have stepped forward, like Dr. Robert Jacobs, former USAF photographic instrumentation officer.


What do you think of the suggested prosaic explanations for their stories?

You have read those suggested explanations, haven't you?



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
if someone believes that we - as earth- are the only form of life in the universe, then you need to study a little more and get out of your mental sickness or mental prison ...


I've never met anyone who believed that, but people like you who suggest that UFO skeptics believe it -- maybe that's a form of mental sickness?



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reevster
Read my sig...below

Second line.


"Colonel"? Phony claims from the get-go. Check out the full story about that guy and his book before sneering at skeptics for being weak-minded.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I am seeing way too much confusion around here. We aren't all on the same page and it makes discussion difficult.

Why do the hardcore alien believers say things like "Skeptics don't believe in UFOs"?? If a skeptic is debating what the flying thing may or may not be, then that makes it unidentified. Therefore it's a UFO and the skeptic is addressing it. How can he not believe in what he's addressing?

Can we please stop the marriage between the acronym UFO, and alien mothership? UFO does not stand for Ultimate Flying Orion spaceship. UFO Doesn't mean alien nor has it ever.

Also; I'd like to add that skeptics most often either do believe in visitation or alien craft, but it is their scientific approach to rule out other MORE PROBABLE explanations that upset the likes of M.R.

Why don't the blind believers enjoy the fact that skeptics are helping them rule out the garbage? The skeptics are the ones who sift through all the evidence and leave behind the treasures of the still unexplained. Those cases are special because the scientific minds cannot prove one way or another what they are, making them great evidence. (evidence, not proof. And 6 million pieces still does not equal proof)

So I say to you MatrixRising, how can you state that skeptics don't look at evidence? Actually, they are looking at it and disecting it with a lot more scrutiny than you. Without scrutiny there is only acceptance. With only acceptance there is no debate. With no debate there is Santa Clause and the video of the fat guy who channels the alien Korton. "Ready to transmit, ready to transmit"
Is that really what you want?






top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join